What is interesting is that the picture that Rasol posted of King Tut looked the same like that picture the only difference being that Rasol's picture's skin tone was much more reflective of the people of southern egypt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
BigMix...you are trying to morph egyptians (North african caucasians) into Nubians. Its a debate that was settled years ago. Be happy with who you are and enjoy western prosperity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
BigMix...you are trying to morph egyptians (North african caucasians) into Nubians. Its a debate that was settled years ago. Be happy with who you are and enjoy western prosperity.

---

Horemheb, there you go with that phrase "North African caucasians" I thought you would realize by now that such a phrase is invalid. There are caucasians today in North Africa but any person with common sense knows they are not indigenous.

You did not answer my response on another thread:

quote:

---

The subject is simple...north africans and Sub Saharan Africans are two different groups of people

---

quote:

---

The Sahara is a desert, a very dry zone where people cannot cross when they want. So, it is a physical barrier. It means that people must invent and prepare well ways to cross it (because it is not an easy cross).
There may be "Africans" (I take black people) in the Sahel belt. But there are not continous connections between North and South. Y'know, it takes some effort to cross Sahra...

---

quote:

---

well, they know full well that the populations north of the desert were , for the most part, different from the negroid populations to the south. This is not rocket science guys, you can get it.

---

All of these people above are indigenous North Africans and they are all closely related to the ancient Egyptians! The white Kabyles of modern day North Africa are not!

I perfectly understand your motives, but when you start saying that the Berbers are just Arab or Iberian immigrants, well, I think that's just retaliation against Eurocentric ideology in the form of even more ludicrous ideology.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike the Hellene:
Why is there so much mud-slinging on this board instead of reasonable discussion?

---

I hope you aren't talking about me. All I do is debate reasonably. Horemheb on the other hand is a troller who is never able to properly respond to anything anyone says not with evidence or sources but his own personal notions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
I hope you aren't talking about me. All I do is debate reasonably. Horemheb on the other hand is a troller who is never able to properly respond to anything anyone says not with evidence or sources but his own personal notions.

---

I'm talking about the general atmosphere of distrust and intolerance for established ideas. Not anyone person in particular. It seems like a battle between revisionists and conservatives.

I knew this board had a very black African flavor, but I didn't know it was so hostile to anything having to do with Caucasians in Africa.

I do like TopDog (Charlie Bass). He is a very reasonable and likeable poster. I talk with him on Dodona alot. We disagree sometimes, but most of the time I respect what he has to say because it makes sense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike the Hellene:
That's ridiculous. Why would you say something so inflammatory? The Caucasoids of North Africa were present long before the Arab invasion. I honestly hope that most people here don't believe that.

I perfectly understand your motives, but when you start saying that the Berbers are just Arab or Iberian immigrants, well, I think that's just retaliation against Eurocentric ideology in the form of even more ludicrous ideology.

[This message has been edited by Mike the Hellene (edited 12 May 2005).]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike the Hellene:
The Caucasoids of North Africa were present long before the Arab invasion. I honestly hope that most people here don't believe that...

---

I never said Berbers weren't in North Africa before the Arab invasion! All I'm saying is that North Africans are not just caucasian. Also, 'Berber' is a ethno-linguistic term. There are black Berbers as well as white Berbers. All those pictures I just posted are Berber people!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike the Hellene:
I'm talking about the general atmosphere of distrust and intolerance for established ideas. Not anyone person in particular. It seems like a battle between revisionists and conservatives.

I knew this board had a very black African flavor, but I didn't know it was so hostile to anything having to do with Caucasians in Africa.

I do like TopDog (Charlie Bass). He is a very reasonable and likeable poster. I talk with him on Dodona alot. We disagree sometimes, but most of the time I respect what he has to say because it makes sense.

[This message has been edited by Mike the Hellene (edited 12 May 2005).]

---

Mike...PLEASE DEFINE CAUCASIAN...because since ive been on this forum...my brains ...well my cells are on overload...since i cant get across...the DEFINITION of that term...where people here connect it with lingustics..the indo-eur language family...color..orgin CAUCUS mountains...OR SIMPLY is JUST ThroWn around FOR THERE(europeans) DESIRES...AS U R RIGHT NOW...

by UR DEFINTION what does:

CAUCASIAN/CAUCASIOD=

NEGRO/NERGROID=

I HAVE NOT FOUND THE MEANING OF ANY of THESE TERMS...BASIC..or COMPLEX...SINCE EVERY1 ...WELL THE EUROS ON HERE..SO LOUSLY THROW AROUND...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike the Hellene:
Okay, then let me rephrase: Caucasian Berbers were present in North Africa before the Arab invasion. Of course, there are many different kinds of Berbers, like you said. The coastal ones, the mainland ones, the Saharan ones, and then approaching West African Negroid we have the Tuaregs.

---

Yes I know this, the problem is there is misconception that only caucasian type people live in North Africa and that blacks live only in "Sub-sahara". This is a fallacy. By the way, I'm not an afrocentric and I'm not even black!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Mali, you need to calm the heck down! enough with the 'nigga' stuff! There are better ways to express yourself in an intellectual debate!

---

IM just being..franc...and their is no..INTELECTUAl way..OF LABELING PEOPLE...HUMANs...BY OBVIUOSLY WHAT SEEMS TO BE ...by least intelligent on the r.scale..so whats not a DEBATE...has BECOME 1...

THESE POST SHOULD airously be MANOVERED...since they deserve NO RESPONSE..

Hawass is not a physical anthropologist so whatever claims about the racial identity of Tut are just mere opinion. Heck, as an archaeologist he should be more informed about the culture of the ancient Egyptians, yet he seems to deny any cultural connections to Africa, despite there being so many!

Reminds me of the moron that claimed that the Nubian Civilization was started by Caucasoids look alikes from Libya.

I sometimes wonder if the more caucasoid Berbers like the Kaybele tend to come from Sea People,or those people depicted on ancient Egyptian bas-reliefs. With the classification system that people use we are not certain if they are talking about real caucasoids or Khoisans which were sometimes in old literature called caucasoid.

Capoid Types
1.) Khoid (Hottentot)
2.) Sanid (Bushman)

Australoid Types
1.) Negritoid (Australoids of southeastern Asia, Indonesia/Malaysia, and the Andamans)
2.) Veddoid (Australoids of southern Asia, forming a belt from southern Arabia to the Iranian Plateau and reaching the strongest frequency in India)
3.) Jomonid (Australoid element of the Ainu)
4.) Papuan-Melanesian (Papua-New Guinea, Melanesia, Tasmania)
5.) Australian (Australia)

Negroid Types
1.) Bambutid (pygmies, yay!)
2.) Paleonegrid (forest belt region of Central and West Africa)
3.) Sudanid (West Africa)
4.) Bantid (Bantu Africa)
5.) Nilotid (the Nile)
6.) Aethiopid (Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia)

Mongoloid Types
1.) Sinid (China, Japan, and Korea)
2.) Tungid (Chukotka-Kamchatka, Eskimo regions, northern Urals, Mongolia, Siberia, Tibet)
3.) Austrid (Indochina and the South Seas)
4.) Amerind (North, Central, and South America)

Caucasoid Types
1.) Atlanto-Mediterranean (Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Greece, North Africa, some parts of Mesopotamia and the Levant)
2.) Brunn (Ireland, Scandinavia, and some parts of coastal North Africa)
3.) Alpine (widespread throughout all Eurasia, found in most concentration in Central Europe and the West Asian highlands)
4.) Borreby (Germany, Denmark, etc.)
5.) Corded (when merged with the Danubian, created the Nordic)
6.) Danubian (when merged with the Corded, created the Nordic)
7.) Afghanian (Iranian Plateau)
8.) Cappadocian (Asia Minor and the Levant)
9.) Nordindid (Northern India)
10.) Orientalid (Arabia and other parts of Middle East)

There are plenty of hybrids and composites as well, but those in a nutshell are the racial types of the world. And just for the record, this isn't any one man's system. It's a revision and compilation of the best physical anthropology has offered us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
We are grabbing at straws guys. Lets do good scholarship and stop trying to make the Egyptians something they were not just to make ourselves feel better.

---

yuppers... from viewing the world black and white...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Yes I know this, the problem is there is misconception that only caucasian type people live in North Africa and that blacks live only in "Sub-sahara". This is a fallacy. By the way, I'm not an afrocentric and I'm not even black!

---

Oh, I see. In that case, you're 100% right. There is no clear-cut division between North and South.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Mike, have you studied the pre-history of Northern Africa? It appears the earliest cultures there were Metch-Aflou,Taroflat,Capsians,and Ibero-Maurasian.

I sometimes wonder if the more caucasoid Berbers like the Kaybele tend to come from Sea People,or those people depicted on ancient Egyptian bas-reliefs. With the classification system that people use we are not certain if they are talking about real caucasoids or Khoisans which were sometimes in old literature called caucasoid.

---

Ooo, I have a Kabyle friend on Dodona who wrote about his idea of where the Caucasoids of North Africa came from. I'll go see if I can dig up his post. I'd be interested in your response.

In regards to the Forensic anthropologist,Susan Anton, she said the following about the race of Tut-ankh-Amun:

Race was "the hardest call." The shape of the cranial cavity indicated an African, while the nose opening suggested narrow nostrils ? a European characteristic. The skull was a North African.

The resulting plaster cast is perhaps midway between the square-jawed, high-cheekboned Egyptian Tut, and the strikingly androgynous French Tut.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3176462

She basically said the crania was African but the nose opening was more ''European''

BTW, many older anthropologist put people like Nubians,Somalis,Ethiopians,and even Fulani people into the caucasoid bracket. I know most white supremist get a blood rush when hearing this,but understand caucasoid does not necessary mean a European like you envision it to me. Most of it is based on the crania structure which Susan Anton said was '"African''

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike the Hellene:
I'd be glad to elaborate on the types of living races that span the globe, Mali. Most of the list below is based on common sense geography, migration patterns, and revised physical anthropology. So don't let the fancy schmancy terminology get to you. A Sudanid is just a West African Negroid, for instance.

[b]Capoid Types
1.) Khoid (Hottentot)
2.) Sanid (Bushman)

Australoid Types
1.) Negritoid (Australoids of southeastern Asia, Indonesia/Malaysia, and the Andamans)
2.) Veddoid (Australoids of southern Asia, forming a belt from southern Arabia to the Iranian Plateau and reaching the strongest frequency in India)
3.) Jomonid (Australoid element of the Ainu)
4.) Papuan-Melanesian (Papua-New Guinea, Melanesia, Tasmania)
5.) Australian (Australia)

Negroid Types
1.) Bambutid (pygmies, yay!)
2.) Paleonegrid (forest belt region of Central and West Africa)
3.) Sudanid (West Africa)
4.) Bantid (Bantu Africa)
5.) Nilotid (the Nile)
6.) Aethiopid (Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia)

Mongoloid Types
1.) Sinid (China, Japan, and Korea)
2.) Tungid (Chukotka-Kamchatka, Eskimo regions, northern Urals, Mongolia, Siberia, Tibet)
3.) Austrid (Indochina and the South Seas)
4.) Amerind (North, Central, and South America)

Caucasoid Types
1.) Atlanto-Mediterranean (Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Greece, North Africa, some parts of Mesopotamia and the Levant)
2.) Brunn (Ireland, Scandinavia, and some parts of coastal North Africa)
3.) Alpine (widespread throughout all Eurasia, found in most concentration in Central Europe and the West Asian highlands)
4.) Borreby (Germany, Denmark, etc.)
5.) Corded (when merged with the Danubian, created the Nordic)
6.) Danubian (when merged with the Corded, created the Nordic)
7.) Afghanian (Iranian Plateau)
8.) Cappadocian (Asia Minor and the Levant)
9.) Nordindid (Northern India)
10.) Orientalid (Arabia and other parts of Middle East)

There are plenty of hybrids and composites as well, but those in a nutshell are the racial types of the world. And just for the record, this isn't any one man's system. It's a revision and compilation of the best physical anthropology has offered us.

[This message has been edited by Mike the Hellene (edited 12 May 2005).][/B]

---

but Mike..
its kind of ironic...
Congoid Subspecies of sub-Saharan Africa
A. Central Congoid race (Geographic center and origin in the Congo river basin)
1. Palaecongoid subrace (the Congo river basin: Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Congo, Angola)
2. Sudanid subrace (western Africa: Niger, Mali, Senegal, Guinea)
3. Nilotid subrace (southern Sudan; the ancient Nubians were of this subrace)
4. Kafrid or Bantid subrace (east and south Africa: Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Natal)
B. Bambutid race (African Pygmies)
C. Aethiopid race (Ethiopia, Somalia; hybridized with Caucasoids)

quote:

---

Ooo, I have a Kabyle friend on Dodona who wrote about his idea of where the Caucasoids of North Africa came from. I'll go see if I can dig up his post. I'd be interested in your response.

Oh, and by Caucasoid, I definitely don't mean the Khoisan!

---

That's good. However, the earliest Northern Africans are the Metcha-Aflou populations. Many consider these people to be Khoisanoid.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike the Hellene:

[b]Capoid Types
1.) Khoid (Hottentot)
2.) Sanid (Bushman)

Australoid Types
1.) Negritoid (Australoids of southeastern Asia, Indonesia/Malaysia, and the Andamans)
2.) Veddoid (Australoids of southern Asia, forming a belt from southern Arabia to the Iranian Plateau and reaching the strongest frequency in India)
3.) Jomonid (Australoid element of the Ainu)
4.) Papuan-Melanesian (Papua-New Guinea, Melanesia, Tasmania)
5.) Australian (Australia)

Negroid Types
1.) Bambutid (pygmies, yay!)
2.) Paleonegrid (forest belt region of Central and West Africa)
3.) Sudanid (West Africa)
4.) Bantid (Bantu Africa)
5.) Nilotid (the Nile)
6.) Aethiopid (Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia)

Mongoloid Types
1.) Sinid (China, Japan, and Korea)
2.) Tungid (Chukotka-Kamchatka, Eskimo regions, northern Urals, Mongolia, Siberia, Tibet)
3.) Austrid (Indochina and the South Seas)
4.) Amerind (North, Central, and South America)

Caucasoid Types
1.) Atlanto-Mediterranean (Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Greece, North Africa, some parts of Mesopotamia and the Levant)
2.) Brunn (Ireland, Scandinavia, and some parts of coastal North Africa)
3.) Alpine (widespread throughout all Eurasia, found in most concentration in Central Europe and the West Asian highlands)
4.) Borreby (Germany, Denmark, etc.)
5.) Corded (when merged with the Danubian, created the Nordic)
6.) Danubian (when merged with the Corded, created the Nordic)
7.) Afghanian (Iranian Plateau)
8.) Cappadocian (Asia Minor and the Levant)
9.) Nordindid (Northern India)
10.) Orientalid (Arabia and other parts of Middle East)

There are plenty of hybrids and composites as well, but those in a nutshell are the racial types of the world. And just for the record, this isn't any one man's system. It's a revision and compilation of the best physical anthropology has offered us.
[/B]

---

Mike, all of these classifications and terminologies are old, out-dated, and most of all inaccurate.

I notice as usual that the so-called "caucasoid" group is the largest with the most variety of types. And you also seperate the "Capoid" groups from the "Negroid" groups. "Sub-Saharan" Africa is much larger than the geographic area in which your "Caucasoid" types inhabit, yet you show less variety of "Negroid" types. Also, physical anthropologist realized decades ago that Native Americans are of a different 'racial' group from "Mongoloids". Genetic evidence also supports this. And if you've seen as many asian peoples as I have, there are more "Mongoloid" types than what you've just posted! Genetic studies also show that the various aboriginal populations of South Asia, Southeast Asia, the Pacific, and Australia are very divergent from each other so that they really are not of the same racial group as you show! The Ainu may well have derived from an aboriginal Pacific people but again they are very divergent from a Veddoid.

All in all your chart fails to convey the true relationships between populations.

As for the Aethiopids, I don't believe most of them to be hybridized with Caucasians. Only people like the Amhara and the Semitic-speakers who were "Orientalized" by peoples from the Arabian peninsula.

quote:

---

As for the Aethiopids, I don't believe most of them to be hybridized with Caucasians. Only people like the Amhara and the Semitic-speakers who were "Orientalized" by peoples from the Arabian peninsula.

---

This is the tricky part though is that some of the first Semetic speakers came from the Horn of Africa and dispersed into Yemen. Most modern Southern Arabians are distinct from their Northern Arabian counterparts.

According to the origins of the Arabs themselves they class themselves into Qahtani and Adnan Arabs. Qahtani is the original Arab and Adnan are arabized Arabs.

Other groups like the Mahra of Yemen and others represent the older ethnic groups in Arabia. Their customs and culture are actually more like Africans than so-called Arabs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

This is the tricky part though is that some of the first Semetic speakers came from the Horn of Africa and dispersed into Yemen. Most modern Southern Arabians are distinct from their Northern Arabian counterparts.

According to the origins of the Arabs themselves they class themselves into Qahtani and Adnan Arabs. Qahtani is the original Arab and Adnan are arabized Arabs.

Other groups like the Mahra of Yemen and others represent the older ethnic groups in Arabia. Their customs and culture are actually more like Africans than so-called Arabs.

---

quote:

---

My system is not the same as McCulloch's system, Mali. McCulloch is a Nordicist moron. Most of his system comes from Eickstedt, Lundman, and Coon. My system isn't from any one source at all, in fact. It simply uses the same terminology. And it isn't perfect. It's just building on what other people have said. If anything, it's a guideline.

---

Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience
Rory Coker, Ph.D.

The word "pseudo" means fake. The surest way to spot a fake is to know as much as possible about the real thing -- in this case, about science itself. Knowing science does not mean simply knowing scientific facts (such as the distance from earth to sun, the age of the earth, the distinction between mammal and reptile, etc.) It means understanding the nature of science -- the criteria of evidence, the design of meaningful experiments, the weighing of possibilities, the testing of hypotheses, the establishment of theories, the many aspects of scientific methods that make it possible to draw reliable conclusions about the physical universe.

Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack
precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all.
Listeners are often forced to interpret the statements according to their own preconceptions.

Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and conclusions. Moreover, pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first edition of a pseudoscience book is almost always the last, even though the book remains in print for decades or even centuries. Even books with obvious mistakes, errors, and misprints on every page may be reprinted as is, over and over. Compare this to science textbooks that see a new edition every few years because of the rapid accumulation of new facts and insights.

Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy. Pseudoscientists clip newspaper reports, collect hearsay, cite other pseudoscience books, and pore over ancient religious or mythological works. They rarely or never make an independent investigation to check their sources.

Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis -- usually one which is appealing emotionally,
and spectacularly implausible -- and then looks only for items which appear to support it. Conflicting evidence is ignored.

Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to investigate or to test alternative possibilities. Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to "congenial conclusions," grinding ideological axes, appealing to preconceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings.

Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence. The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled, repeatable scientific experiments. Instead it is on unverifiable eyewitness testimony, stories and tall tales, hearsay, rumor, and dubious anecdotes. Genuine scientific literature is either ignored or misinterpreted.

Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.
Joe Blow puts jello on his head and his headache goes away. To pseudoscience, this means jello cures headaches. To science this means nothing, since no experiment was done. Many things were going on when Joe Blow's headache went away -- the moon was full, a bird flew overhead, the window was open, Joe had on his red shirt, etc. -- and his headache would have gone away eventually in any case, no matter what. A controlled experiment would put many people suffering from headaches in identical circumstances, except for the presence or absence of the remedy it is desired to test, and compare the results which would then have some chance of being meaningful. Many people think there must be something to astrology because a newspaper horoscope describes them perfectly. But close examination would reveal that the description is general enough to cover virtually everyone. This phenomenon, called subjective validation, is one of the foundations of popular support for pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough.
Maybe dowsers can somehow sense the presence of water or minerals under a field, but almost all claim they can dowse equally well from a map! Maybe Uri Geller is "psychic," but are his powers really beamed to him on a radio link with a flying saucer from the planet Hoova, as he has claimed? Maybe plants are "psychic," but why does a bowl of mud respond in exactly the same way, in the same "experiment?"

Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.
Pseudoscientists never carry out careful, methodical experiments themselves -- and they also generally ignore results of those carried out by scientists. Pseudoscientists also never follow up. If one pseudoscientist claims to have done an experiment (such as the "lost" biorhythm studies of Hermann Swoboda that are alleged basis of the modern pseudoscience of biorhythms), no other pseudoscientist ever tries to duplicate it or to check him, even when the original results are missing or questionable! Further, where a pseudoscientist claims to have done an experiment with a remarkable result, he himself never repeats it to check his results and procedures. This is in extreme contrast with science, where crucial experiments are repeated by scientists all over the world with ever-increasing precision.

Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.
Such logical contradictions are simply ignored or rationalized away. Thus, we should not be surprised when Chapter 1
of a book on dowsing says that dowsers use newly cut twigs, because only "live" wood can channel and focus the "earth-radiation"
that makes dowsing possible, whereas Chapter 5 states that nearly all dowsers use metal or plastic rods.

Pseudoscience does not progress.
There are fads, and a pseudoscientist may switch from one fad to another (from ghosts to ESP research, from flying saucers to psychic studies, from ESP research to looking for Bigfoot). But within a given topic, no progress is made. Little or no new information or uncovered. New theories are seldom proposed, and old concepts are rarely modified or discarded in light of new "discoveries," since pseudoscience rarely makes new "discoveries." The older the idea, the more respect it receives. No natural phenomena or processes previously unknown to science have ever been discovered by pseudoscientists. Indeed, pseudoscientists almost invariably deal with phenomena well known to scientists, but little known to the general public -- so that the public will swallow whatever the pseudoscientist wants to claim. Examples include firewalking and "Kirlian" photography.

Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).

Pseudoscience books offer examples of almost every kind of fallacy of logic and reason known to scholars and have invented some new ones of their own. A favorite device is the non sequitur. Pseudoscientists also love the "Galileo Argument." This consists of the pseudoscientist comparing himself to Galileo, and saying that just as the pseudoscientist is believed to be wrong, so Galileo was thought wrong by his contemporaries therefore the pseudoscientist must be right too, just as Galileo was. Clearly the conclusion does not follow! Moreover, Galileo's ideas were tested, verified, and accepted promptly by his scientific colleagues. The rejection came from the established religion which favored the pseudoscience that Galileo's findings contradicted.

Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy. Many pseudoscientists base their claims on incompleteness of information about nature, rather than on what is known at present. But no claim can possibly be supported by lack of information. The fact that people don't recognize what they see in the sky means only that they don't recognize what they saw. This fact is not evidence that flying saucers are from outer space. The statement "Science cannot explain" is common in pseudoscience literature. In many cases, science has no interest in the supposed phenomena because there is no evidence it exists; in other cases, the scientific explanation is well known and well established, but the pseudoscientist doesn't know this or deliberately ignores it to create mystery.

Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking.
The older the idea, the more attractive it is to pseudoscience -- it's the wisdom of the ancients! -- especially if the idea is transparently wrong and has long been discarded by science. Many journalists have trouble in comprehending this point. A typical reporter writing about astrology may think a thorough job can be done by interviewing six astrologers and one astronomer. The astronomer says it's all bunk; the six astrologers say it's great stuff and really works and for $50 they'll be glad to cast anyone's horoscope. (No doubt!) To many reporters, and apparently to many editors and their readers, this would confirm astrology six to one!

quote:

---

Horemheb says: We are grabbing at straws guys...

---

LOL Like a teflon pan calling a kettle black. Horemheb you are the one who grabs at straws and all the time!

quote:

---

..Lets do good scholarship and stop trying to make the Egyptians something they were not just to make ourselves feel better.

---

quote:

---

Lets make it simple...Ancient egyptians were caucasian north Africans.

---

Even Mike says:

quote:

---

In that case, you're 100% right. There is no clear-cut division between North and South.

---

and Ausar says:

quote:

---

In regards to the Forensic anthropologist,Susan Anton, she said the following about the race of Tut-ankh-Amun:

Race was "the hardest call." The shape of the cranial cavity indicated an African, while the nose opening suggested narrow nostrils ? a European characteristic. The skull was a North African.

She basically said the crania was African but the nose opening was more ''European''

---

quote:

---

BTW, many older anthropologist put people like Nubians,Somalis,Ethiopians,and even Fulani people into the caucasoid bracket. I know most white supremist get a blood rush when hearing this,but understand caucasoid does not necessary mean a European like you envision it to me. Most of it is based on the crania structure which Susan Anton said was '"African''

---

And as Kem-Au said, why all these reconstructions anyway? they've already had 2, now they have a 3rd one. Why can't they be satisfied with the images that the ancient Egyptians already have:

a) Most public libraries have magazine collections, and they
certainly have the National Geographic magazine.

b) Spend some time and browse these issues from the earliest to the present,
focusing on articles on Egypt and other African countries

c) Take a particular note of their portrayal of all
non-European peoples

d) Form an opinion or an analysis and then let me know if you want to...

sophisticated San Francisco
As I have previously pointed out, by using the "Hatshepsut" exhibition that will re-open the DeYoung museum
in Golden Gate Park, it's refreshing to live in a more socially sophisticated environ such as the Bay Area. Said that to say this...

In the SF Chronicle's coverage of this 'event', while not editorializing,
it presented
the three different interpretations of Tut - the American, the French, and the Egyptian. Notice how cleverly
the Chronicle put an actual Ancient Egyptian image of the boy king for the Egyptian version.
(The same image in Djehuti's comments above) You think they are making a statement here? http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/11/MNGJRCN50D1.DTL

...and to paraphrase Diop; King Tutankhamen was a Black man, may he rest in peace in his Black heaven.

Those who need to know this, already do. It's all that really matters...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Mike, all of these classifications and terminologies are old, out-dated, and most of all inaccurate.

---

I've had this discussion millions of times on Dodona. Some of them are old, yes, but that's because physical anthropology is not a politically correct subject and most of any of the useful works were written before the present age. Because of that, many of us have tried to revise the out-dated references and reconcile them with genetic evidence (even though physical anthropology and genetics don't always mix; like many of you have said: "Caucasoid genes don't exist").

For inaccurate references such as Coon's belief that East Africans were partially Mediterranean, well, I fixed that. Like I've said before, I don't believe the Aethiopids to be an intermediate type between Caucasoids and Negroids. So now they're in a Negroid group all their own.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
I notice as usual that the so-called "caucasoid" group is the largest with the most variety of types.

---

All the races are very diverse, but the Caucasoid is perhaps the most varied in terms of pigmentation, head form, hair form, and many other features. It is also the type that has been given the most study. I'm sure if more attention was given to the Negroids and Australoids, we'd have more complicated lists. But as of now we have only to work with what we have, sadly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
And you also seperate the "Capoid" groups from the "Negroid" groups. "Sub-Saharan" Africa is much larger than the geographic area in which your "Caucasoid" types inhabit, yet there is a less variety of "Negroid" types.

---

It's my opinion that Capoids are different enough morphologically from Negroids to warrant their own group. I'm sure there are many other Negroid types that could be identified but we just don't have the means to differentiate them anymore than what we have, yet. Unless genetics could help. But I don't know as much about genetics as I would like. I've never claimed to be a scientist, so Rasol's accusation that I am teaching pseudoscience has no effect on me, because much of what I hear here about southern Europeans having negroid blood is just as speculative and Kempian. This is just sort of a hobby for me, anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Also, physical anthropologist realized decades ago that Native Americans are of a different 'racial' group from "Mongoloids". Genetic evidence also supports this.

---

Yeah, I remember the debate about this at Dodona. I'll just say that you could say the same thing about many of the Australoid types. Veddoids and Australian aborigines have very different genetic histories, but they are still morphologically of the wider Australoid race. They just split a longer time ago. Same with American Indians, though I'm not a geneticist, so I'll plead the fifth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
And if you've seen as many asian peoples as I have. There are more "Mongoloid" types than what you've just posted!

---

MONGOLOID TYPES
Sinid
1.) Sinic Mongoloid (China)
2.) Chosonic Mongoloid (Korea)
3.) Nipponic Mongoloid (Japan)
Tungid
1.) Paleosiberian (Chukotka-Kamchatka)
2.) Eskimoid (Arctic North America)
3.) Uralic Mongoloid (Yamalo-Nenets, Turkestan to some extent, etc.)
4.) Altaic Mongoloid (Mongolia, Siberia, Turkestan to some extent, etc.)
5.) Qiangic Mongoloid (Tibet, Burma to some extent)
Austrid
1.) Austroasiatic Mongoloid (Indochina)
2.) Austronesian Mongoloid (Indonesia, Malaysia, Oceania, etc.)
Amerind
The Amerinds are in definite need of more study, because they spanned two continents for goodness sake and show very much diversity that has yet to be quantified satisfactorily.
Composite Mongoloid Types
1.) Turkic Mongoloid (this is the very variable type of the racially chaotic Mongoloid element of Turkestan: a mix of Altaic and Uralic elements)
Hybrid Types with Mongoloid Contribution
1.) Ainuid (the Ainu are a mix of the Australoid "Jomonid" type with a Mongoloid element of mostly Paleosiberian extraction)
2.) Ladogan (this northeastern European type is a relative of the Lapp, and was created when Uralic Mongoloids were absorbed by UP Caucasoids)
3.) Lappish (this specialized type is the characteristic race of Lappland, and was brought about the same way as the Ladogan)
4.) Australasian (while pure Mongoloid types do exist in southeastern Asia, this is the most numerous type; it is a mix of Negritoid and Austroasiatic Mongoloid)
5.) Nesid (this is a common type of Oceanic peoples like Polynesians; it is a blend of Austronesian Mongoloid expansionists with a substantial element of absorbed Negritoid and Papuan-Melanesian; like the Ainu, a blend of Australoid and Mongoloid sometimes creates an almost Caucasian appearance, and this is why the Ainu and Polynesians have been erroneously classified as Caucasians by genetically-ignorant former anthropologists like Coon that didn't know any better)
6.) Turanid (different Caucasian types lived in Turkestan before the Turkic Mongoloids arrived; this is the result of their union; some Turanids can still be found outside of Turkestan in places like Turkey and Hungary)
New World Hybrid Types
1.) Mestizoid (this is the widely varied result of the intermixture that took place between the indigenous American Indians and the Iberian settlers of the New World)
2.) Triracial (characteristic brown-skinned type of Brazil; basically a blend of West African Sudanid, West Mediterranean, and Amerind elements)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Genetic studies also show that the various aboriginal populations of South Asia, Southeast Asia, the Pacific, and Australia are very divergent from each other so that they really are not of the same racial group as you show! The Ainu may well have derived from an aboriginal Pacific people but again they are very divergent from a Veddoid.

---

This is true. And I covered that in the more elaborated (translation: I actually did some work) list above.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
All in all your chart fails to convey the true relationships between populations.

---

The list just needs some more work, I think. But you're right, no list can ever quantify all relationships effectively and with 100% efficiency, but it can try.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
This is the tricky part though is that some of the first Semetic speakers came from the Horn of Africa and dispersed into Yemen. Most modern Southern Arabians are distinct from their Northern Arabian counterparts.

According to the origins of the Arabs themselves they class themselves into Qahtani and Adnan Arabs. Qahtani is the original Arab and Adnan are arabized Arabs.

Other groups like the Mahra of Yemen and others represent the older ethnic groups in Arabia. Their customs and culture are actually more like Africans than so-called Arabs.

---

Yes, non-Caucasoid types exist in southern Arabia. But peoples like the Mahra are properly Veddoid/Negritoid peoples, not Negroid.

EDIT: Though Aethiopids most certainly exist in Arabia, too, don't get me wrong.

quote:

---

Composite Mongoloid Types
1.) Turkic Mongoloid (this is the very variable type of the racially chaotic Mongoloid element of Turkestan: a mix of Altaic and Uralic elements)
Hybrid Types with Mongoloid Contribution
1.) Ainuid (the Ainu are a mix of the Australoid "Jomonid" type with a Mongoloid element of mostly Paleosiberian extraction)
2.) Ladogan (this northeastern European type is a relative of the Lapp, and was created when Uralic Mongoloids were absorbed by UP Caucasoids)
3.) Lappish (this specialized type is the characteristic race of Lappland, and was brought about the same way as the Ladogan)
4.) Australasian (while pure Mongoloid types do exist in southeastern Asia, this is the most numerous type; it is a mix of Negritoid and Austroasiatic Mongoloid)
5.) Nesid (this is a common type of Oceanic peoples like Polynesians; it is a blend of Austronesian Mongoloid expansionists with a substantial element of absorbed Negritoid and Papuan-Melanesian; like the Ainu, a blend of Australoid and Mongoloid sometimes creates an almost Caucasian appearance, and this is why the Ainu and Polynesians have been erroneously classified as Caucasians by genetically-ignorant former anthropologists like Coon that didn't know any better)
6.) Turanid (different Caucasian types lived in Turkestan before the Turkic Mongoloids arrived; this is the result of their union; some Turanids can still be found outside of Turkestan in places like Turkey and Hungary)
New World Hybrid Types
1.) Mestizoid (this is the widely varied result of the intermixture that took place between the indigenous American Indians and the Iberian settlers of the New World)
2.) Triracial (characteristic brown-skinned type of Brazil; basically a blend of West African Sudanid, West Mediterranean, and Amerind elements)

---

Mike, this isn't what I meant. You've forgotten populations from Tibet and northeast India. But anyway this is not a thread about physical anthropology and races in general, this is about Hawass and the new reconstruction of Tut!

quote:

---

Horemheb also said: The same information is going to come out when they reconstruct the faces of all the other 18th dynasty Kings and Queens. Lets put this race stuff to bed once and for all.

---

That's funny, I recall in past threads whenever someone brought up the second reconstruction of Tut that showed him very Africoid, you dismiss it and try to come up with all sorts of excuses as to why such a reconstruction is a mistake.

Besides, as Ausar said, in the book X-raying the pharaohs by Kent Weeks, the 18th dynasty is very African with affinities to Nubians. So I can't wait to see their reconstructions. But considering all this mess with Tut, I wouldn't be surprised if they had to do 2, 3, or more reconstructions on each mummy!!

quote:

---

THE red flag
One glaring omission on this topic is the fact of the participation of The National Geographic Society
in this 'reconstruction' business as well as being a sponsor of the "Tut tour" . They are the same ones
who caused a stir when they did a computer reconstruction of the face of the sphinx back in 1991.
Rather than elaborate on that and the society, I suggest the following:
a) Most public libraries have magazine collections, and they
certainly have the National Geographic magazine.

b) Spend some time and browse these issues from the earliest to the present,
focusing on articles on Egypt and other African countries

c) Take a particular note of their portrayal of all
non-European peoples

d) Form an opinion or an analysis and then let me know if you want to...

sophisticated San Francisco
As I have previously pointed out, by using the "Hatshepsut" exhibition that will re-open the DeYoung museum
in Golden Gate Park, it's refreshing to live in a more socially sophisticated environ such as the Bay Area. Said that to say this...

In the SF Chronicle's coverage of this 'event', while not editorializing,
it presented
the three different interpretations of Tut - the American, the French, and the Egyptian. Notice how cleverly
the Chronicle put an actual Ancient Egyptian image of the boy king for the Egyptian version.
(The same image in Djehuti's comments above) You think they are making a statement here? ]http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/11/MNGJRCN50D1.DTL

---

And Wally, you are right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Everyone on this board knows that King Tut was a caucasian North African...

---

And you still have not responded to anything I said about the peoples of North Africa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike the Hellene:

That's ridiculous. Why would you say something so inflammatory? The Caucasoids of North Africa were present long before the Arab invasion. I honestly hope that most people here don't believe that.

[This message has been edited by Mike the Hellene (edited 12 May 2005).]

---

Thought Writes:

Mike if you have some NEW evidence please present it on the Kabyle thread. Otherwise this has been resolved.

P.S.

Still waiting for you to define what 'Caucasoid' and 'Negroid' means?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

Mike,
have you studied the pre-history of Northern Africa? It appears the earliest cultures there were Metch-Aflou,Taroflat,Capsians,and Ibero-Maurasian.

I sometimes wonder if the more caucasoid Berbers like the Kaybele tend to come from Sea People,or those people depicted on ancient Egyptian bas-reliefs.

---

Thought Writes:

We have been over this soooo many tmes Ausar, I am sure you know this. The mtDNA of the Kabyle link them with Iberia NOT the Middle East. Their Y-Clade is E3b2 like other north Africans. What gives with the circular arguments Ausar?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

We have been over this soooo many tmes Ausar, I am sure you know this. The mtDNA of the Kabyle link them with Iberia NOT the Middle East...

---

This explains why the Kabyle and other white Berbers have blood groups that correspond closely with those of the Basque people of northern Spain

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Still waiting for you to define what 'Caucasoid' and 'Negroid' means?

---

Sure. Why not give it a shot. This is from the work of a physical anthropologist named Scheele who preached against the use of anthropological characteristics to explain mental characteristics. A very likeable writer, too. He doesn't talk down to anyone and explores all possible avenues.

Caucasoid Sorting Criteria and Characteristics:
-head form ranges from short to long
-medium or light brown to lily white skin color
-hair seldom jet black but can be any lighter shade
-form of hair almost never woolly but can be any other form, from straight to wavy to curly to somewhat nappy
-eyes never black but can be any lighter shade
-facial and body hair medium to very abundant
-prognathism is very rare
-lips medium to thin, seldom thick or everted
-chin is a prominent facial feature
-texture of hair seldom coarse, but usually fine
-nose usually high and narrow, but never flat at the base
-pelvic area in both sexes usually broad
-range before colonial age: Europe, Middle East, North Africa, Turkestan

Negroid Sorting Criteria and Characteristics:
-squarish frontal skull shape
-almost always long-headed, the Negroid is the most long-headed type in the world, probably approaching its greatest cranial length in Nilotics
-woolly or frizzy hair form
-darkish brown to black hair
-medium brown to jet black skin color
-dark brown to black eye color
-average nasal index is medium broad to very broad, though thinner noses are common in East Africa
-considerable projection of face below nose (prognathy)
-somewhat projecting incisors
-nose appears concave in profile
-nose tip usually elevated
-nostrils usually thick and flaring
-lips usually thick and everted
-short facial form
-somewhat prominent cheek bones
-chin usually round and receding, very seldomly projecting as it does in Caucasoids
-head hair short if not intentionally grown out
-thin facial and body hair
-generally small ears that fit close to the head
-lower arms and legs quite long in proportion to the rest of each limb
-leg calf usually quite small
-heels project prominently
-pelvis in both sexes usually narrow
-range before colonial age: all of sub-Saharan Africa, minus the Khoisan areas

These sorting criteria and characteristics are used by criminal investigators to determine the race of the dead person from the skull. Because obviously you can't tell skin color from bones, you have to use the characteristics of the skull itself. This is why terms like Caucasoid and Negroid are useful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike the Hellene:
Sure. Why not give it a shot. This is from the work of a physical anthropologist named Scheele who preached against the use of anthropological characteristics to explain mental characteristics. A very likeable writer, too. He doesn't talk down to anyone and explores all possible avenues.

[b]Caucasoid Sorting Criteria and Characteristics:
-head form ranges from short to long
-medium or light brown to lily white skin color
-hair seldom jet black but can be any lighter shade
-form of hair almost never woolly but can be any other form, from straight to wavy to curly to somewhat nappy
-eyes never black but can be any lighter shade
-facial and body hair medium to very abundant
-prognathism is very rare
-lips medium to thin, seldom thick or everted
-chin is a prominent facial feature
-texture of hair seldom coarse, but usually fine
-nose usually high and narrow, but never flat at the base
-pelvic area in both sexes usually broad
-range before colonial age: Europe, Middle East, North Africa, Turkestan

Negroid Sorting Criteria and Characteristics:
-squarish frontal skull shape
-almost always long-headed, the Negroid is the most long-headed type in the world, probably approaching its greatest cranial length in Nilotics
-woolly or frizzy hair form
-darkish brown to black hair
-medium brown to jet black skin color
-dark brown to black eye color
-average nasal index is medium broad to very broad, though thinner noses are common in East Africa
-considerable projection of face below nose (prognathy)
-somewhat projecting incisors
-nose appears concave in profile
-nose tip usually elevated
-nostrils usually thick and flaring
-lips usually thick and everted
-short facial form
-somewhat prominent cheek bones
-chin usually round and receding, very seldomly projecting as it does in Caucasoids
-head hair short if not intentionally grown out
-thin facial and body hair
-generally small ears that fit close to the head
-lower arms and legs quite long in proportion to the rest of each limb
-leg calf usually quite small
-heels project prominently
-pelvis in both sexes usually narrow
-range before colonial age: all of sub-Saharan Africa, minus the Khoisan areas

These sorting criteria and characteristics are used by criminal investigators to determine the race of the dead person from the skull. Because obviously you can't tell skin color from bones, you have to use the characteristics of the skull itself. This is why terms like Caucasoid and Negroid are useful.

[This message has been edited by Mike the Hellene (edited 12 May 2005).][/B]

---

VAUGHAN, ONT. – York Regional Police have released drawings of an unidentified woman whose badly burned body was found in an industrial park more than 10 years ago.

A police officer made the gruesome discovery on Sept. 1, 1994, after noticing a fire behind a building on Bradwick Drive near Highway 7 in Vaughan.

When the fire was put out, the body of a young woman was found in the remains of a suitcase. Gasoline and tires had been used to fuel the fire.

On Tuesday, investigators released drawings of a clay reconstruction of the victim's face, along with previously unpublished information that they hope may help someone identify her.

Forensic testing indicates that the victim was likely a dark-skinned Caucasian from a North African country such as Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia or Egypt. Her estimated age was 17 to 18.

She stood five feet, four inches, and had a very slim build, weighing between 85 and 100 pounds. She had dark curly hair, which may have been dyed a reddish colour, and protruding front teeth, which were in good condition.

Police say the victim had suffered broken bones in her back and lower limbs that had been left to heal untreated. As a result, they say she was likely immobile and in constant pain.

but its a crime when they use the same technology for there liking to produce misleading images...

the image of that NORTH AFRICAN women...shows substantial negroid features to be chartorized as...SUDAN,ETHOPIAN,SOMALI and A NORTH AFRICAN....so by just recreating a REPRESENTATIVE..image..of her was dier..
AS HER CRANIAL...skull..can easily be ...CAUCASOID...but because of various...COMPONENTS..prognaithim...SHE IS LABELED ..AND AFRICAN...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Djehuti, What we need is sound scholarship. The job of history is accuracy, not increasing the self esteem of blacks. Everyone on this board knows that King Tut was a caucasian North African. We need to spend more time on Ancient Egyptian history , African history or whatever and leave the politics behind. I would like to hear more about the middle kingdom if there is anyone on here but ausar who knows anything about it. he seems to be the only one who really cares abiout history.

---

What we need is presentations of FACTS along with sensible interpretations follow by discussion...

quote:

---

Originally posted by mali:
Forensic testing indicates that the victim was likely a dark-skinned Caucasian from a North African country such as Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia or Egypt. Her estimated age was 17 to 18.

[/B]

---

BY the classification by forensics....IN THIS CASE...it is clear that...THE SOMALIS ETHIOPIANS AND NORTH AFRICANS...have what u classified....to be..caucaisan...just by examining the skull...

HOW DECIEVING IS THAT!!!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike the Hellene:

But we all know now dat da Aethiopids are Negroid, foo!

---

AND SURELY...tut..was ...A AETHOIPID...

AETHOIPID=negroid